WHAT does āmeaningā mean? It might sound like a strange question, but it has been flummoxing AI experts for decades ā and philosophers for much longer. But now thereās a robot that can learn the meaning of objects and words as naturally and usefully as we do, almost like a baby in fact.
āMeaningā has been a particular bugbear for AI because you canāt build machines with human-like intelligence unless they have a notion of what objects and concepts mean. Traditionally, AI has tried to tackle this problem by working out ways for software to store symbolic ārepresentationsā of objects. For example, to store the idea of an apple, say, AI engineers specify what qualities, such as shape and colour, signify āapplenessā.
But this, according to Paul Cohen at the University of Massachusetts, is precisely where weāve been going wrong. āWe are trying to make machines that acquire meaningful representations of the world with as little intervention as possible,ā he says.
Advertisement
Teaming up with researchers from the University of Maryland and Imperial College London, Cohen has developed a simple robot that can move about the world and form concepts of objects around it entirely by itself, based purely on sensory information. Itās then able to use these concepts to plan its behaviour.
For example, if you hold a cup in front of its camera and start talking about the cup, the robot will begin to form an understanding of what a cup is, albeit in very basic terms. By saying āthis is a cupā and āthe cup is yellowā it will form simple concepts of ācupā and āyellowā, so that if you ask the robot at a later stage to turn towards the cup, or move towards something yellow, it will willingly oblige.
This is impressive, because itās analogous to the primitive learning of a newborn baby as it first starts figuring out how to put together images and sounds.
While learning routines are everywhere in AI labs, they all involve people determining what a robot or a piece of software should learn, even with so-called unsupervised learning routines.
But Cohenās technique puts no constraints on how the robot represents the information it acquires. Instead it uses a technique called āclusteringā to find relationships between the flow of information it receives. āWe donāt even tell it what a āwordā is, it has to figure that out for itself,ā he says.
Itās a subtle distinction, but an important one, equivalent to the difference between assuming that people are born with concepts already programmed in their brains, or that they develop them through experiences. The general consensus is that the latter seems most likely since the former would be extremely inefficient and would limit what we are able to learn.
āWe know that peopleās memories are stored in the brain in neurons but we donāt know how they are stored at the neuron level,ā says Niall Adams at Imperial College London, who collaborated on the project. We donāt suppose that concepts for objects are hard-wired into these neurons from birth.
Key to this approach is a definition of āmeaningā derived by philosopher Fred Dretske, at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. This says that for a representation to be meaningful, it must somehow have a bearing on how that person or thing acts. This is crucial because meaning comes from interacting with the environment. āYou can engineer this, but it turns out to be very time-consuming,ā says Cohen.